(a) Our Mishnah states that all the Midos in the Mikdash were Gadush
(heaped) except for - the Chavitei Kohen Gadol ...

(b) ... which did not need to be Gadush, because it was larger than the
others to the extend that even when it was Machuk (level), it contained the
same amount as the others when they were Gadush.

(c) The distinction the Tana makes between Midas ha'Lach and Midas ha'Yavesh
is - that the Birutzei Midas ha'Lach is Kodesh, whereas the Birutzei Midas
ha'Yavesh is Chol.

(d) Rebbi Akiva ascribes this to the fact that the former (Midas ha'Lach) is
itself sanctified, whereas the latter is not. Rebbi Yossi maintains that
both Keilim are sanctified on the inside (as we shall see). The difference
between the Birutzei Lach and the Birutzei Yavesh therefore, stems from the
fact - that whereas the Birutzei Lach were already joined to the liquid that
is inside the K'li, the Birutzei Yavesh were not.

2)

(a) The problem with our Mishnah, which states 'Kol Midos she'ba'Mikdash
Nigdashos ... ' is - that according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir, there were two measures, one Gadush and one Machuk (so
how can the Tana speak of 'all the Midos', as if there were many)?
2. ... the Rabbanan, there was only one.

(b) So we amend the Mishnah to read (instead of 'Kol ha'Midos') 'Kol
ha'Medidos ... ' (meaning that all measuring was performed with the
Gedushah, except for when the Chavitei Kohen Gadol, when they used the
Machuk.

3)

(a) The Tana Kama (as well as Rebbi Akiva) holds that the Midas ha'Lach was
anointed both inside and outside. The Midas ha'Yavesh, he maintaints - was
sanctified on the inside, but not on the outside.

(b) Rebbi Akiva holds that even though the inside of the Midas ha'Yavesh was
not annointed - the contents become sanctified through Kedushas ha'Peh (a
verbal declaration).

(c) Nevertheless, the Birutzin are not sanctified - because the owner only
intends to sanctify what remains inside the K'li, but not what spills over
the side.

(d) Whereas Rebbi Yossi (whom we already discussed in the Mishnah, and) who
does not differentiate between Midas ha'Lach and Midas Yavesh, holds - that
both measurements are sanctified inside but not outside.

4)

(a) We ask on Rebbi Yossi how the Birutzei ha'Lach can become sanctified,
seeing as the owner did not intend them to. Rav Shishna in the name of Rav
learns from here - the principle 'K'lei Shareis Mekadshin she'Lo mi'Da'as'.

(b) Ravina ascribes the Kedushah to a decree of the Chachamim - who were
afraid that people might learn from there that one is permitted to take
Kodesh from a K'li Shareis and declare it Chol.

(a) The Beraisa rules that if the Lechem ha'Panim and the Bazichin are
placed on the Shulchan only after Shabbos (instead of on Shabbos), and the
latter is then burned on the following Shabbos - the Lechem ha'Panim are
Pasul (because they need to be on the Shulchan for two Shabbasos before the
Bazichin are burned).

(b) The Kohanim should have left the loaves on the Shulchan together with
the Bazichin until the Shabbos, despite the fact that they remain on the
Shulchan for longer than the prescribed seven days, (since the Lechem
ha'Panim is not subject to Linah).

(c) Rebbi Zeira asks from there on Ravina - according to whom Chazal ought
to have decreed for fear that people will learn from there to leave things
that are Kadosh in a K'li Shareis, believing that Linah can never occur to
Kodesh that is placed in a K'li Shareis.

(d) We answer 'Chutz a'Penim Karamis!' by which we mean - that we cannot
really ask on Ravina from the Lechem ha'Panim, which are placed in the
Heichal, an area that is only frequented by Kohanim, who are generally
alert, and not prone to such mistakes, whereas the measuring of the Menachos
takes place in the Azarah (which is accessible to everybody).

(b) According to Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef, Mosar Nesachim refers to Birutzei
Midos. Rebbi Yochanan defines it as - the excess over what someone who
undertook to supply the Menachos for a year has to provide, as we will now
explain.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan's explanation is based on another Mishnah in Shekalim,
where the Tana rules that someone who receives payment to provide flour for
the Menachos at ...

1. ... four Sa'ah per Sela, and the rate goes up to three - must continue to
supply four.
2. ... three Sa'ah per Sela, and the rate drops to four - becomes obligated
to supply four.

(d) The principle that governs this dual ruling is - 'Yad Hekdesh al
ha'Elyonah' (Hekdesh always has the upperhand).

7)

(a) We cite a Beraisa in support of Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef, and a Beraisa in
support of Rebbi Yochanan. The first Beraisa rules that initially - the
Birutzei Midos should be brought together with another Korban (which causes
them to become sanctified) should it become avilable.

(b) If there is ...

1. ... and the Birutzei ha'Midos are not brought together with it - they
become Pasul be'Linah (see Rambam).
2. ... not - then they are sold and with the proceeds one purchases Olos for
Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach.

(c) 'Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach', says the Tana, is brought on the Mizbe'ach as an
Olas Tzibur (for Kayitz Hamizbe'ach) - and the skin is given to the Kohanim
(of the Mishmar that is serving that week in the Beis-Hamikdash).

(d) If the Tana had not told us this, we might otherwise have thought - that
the skin must be sold together with the rest of the animal, and used to
purchase Olos for Kayitz ha'Mizbe'ach.

(a) Our Mishnah teaches us that all Korbanos require the Minchas Nesachim
except for five. The ...

1. ... three Kodshim Kalim that do not require Nesachim are - Bechor,
Ma'aser and Pesach.
2. ... two Kodshei Kodshim that do not require them either are - Chatas and
Asham.

(b) Only one Chatas and one Asham requires Nesachim - the Chatas and the
Asham of a Metzora.

9)

(a) The Pasuk in Korach "Va'asisem Isheh la'Hashem Olah O Zevach" refers to
the Din of Nesachim. According to the Beraisa, the word "Olah" comes to
preclude - a Minchah that is brought on its own (without a Korban) from the
Din of Nesachim.

(b) "Zevach" includes Shelamim in the Din of Nesachim. The Tana includes
Todah - from the word "O".

(c) The Tana learns from "Lefalei Neder O Nedavah" - that only Korbenos
Nedavah require Nesachim, but not Korbenos Chovah.

(d) Nevertheless, from "O be'Mo'adeichem" - he includes Olos Re'iyah and
Shalmei Chagigah in the Din of Nesachim (even though they are Korbenos
Chovah of Yom-Tov).

10)

(a) Based on the previous ruling, the Tana learns from "ve'Chi Sa'aseh ben
Bakar" (bearing in mind that the Pasuk already mentioned "min ha'Bakar O min
ha'Tzon") - that the Se'irei Chatas of Yom-Tov are precluded from the Din of
Nesachim.

(b) We include Olos Re'iyah and Shalmei Chagigah (from "O be'Mo'adeichem")
but preclude the Sa'ir Chatas (from "ve'Chi Sa'aseh ben Bakar") - because
there are Olos and Shelamim which come as Nedavos, but not Chata'os.

(d) This is the opinion of Rebbi Yashiyah. Rebbi Yonasan disagrees with
him - on the grounds that the Torah writes "Zevach", and a Korban Of is not
called a Zevach.

11)

(a) Based on the Pasuk "Adam ki s ... min ha'Bakar u'min ha'Tzon", Rebbi
Yonasan learns from " ... min ha'Bakar O min ha'Tzon" - that someone who
declares a Neder to bring an Olah, may bring either the one or the other,
and is not obligated to bring both (as the earlier Pasuk implies).

(b) The problem with this D'rashah is that according to Rebbi Yonasan
himself - whenever the Torah does not write "Yachdav", it means either or,
and not both (at first glance, rendering this D'rashah redundant).

(c) And we counter this argument - by explaining that the 'Vav' in "u'min
ha'Tzon" is as if the Torah had written "Yachdav".

(d) The 'Vav' in "u'Mekalel Aviv ve'Imo" however, does not have the same
implications - because the Torah has no choic other than to writ it
(otherwise, the Torah would appear to be speaking about where a person's
father cursed his mother).